Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. aka ClawofBeta Straight Male
    Corn's Avatar [Jr. Event Coordinator]

    IGN: ClawofBeta
    Server: LoL.NA
    Level: 30
    Job: Bot Lane
    Guild: N/A
    Alliance: N/A
    New_Jersey

    Default Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    http://books.google.com/books?id=x1q...hat%22&f=false

    72a. I have no frigging clue where to start.

  2. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    isn't this a Riemann summation? It's been a longtime since I've done that, but it looks really similar.

  3. aka ClawofBeta Straight Male
    Corn's Avatar [Jr. Event Coordinator]

    IGN: ClawofBeta
    Server: LoL.NA
    Level: 30
    Job: Bot Lane
    Guild: N/A
    Alliance: N/A
    New_Jersey

    Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Just bumping this post up to say no. @Locked, you have any ideas?

  4. Eos Scammed Me. Bi Male
    IGN: Ryninagha
    Server: Windia
    Level: 16x
    Job: Dark Knight
    Guild: EmoCorner
    Alliance: EmoNight

    Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Where's @Noah when you need him?

  5. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Other than it being a seemingly useless proof, not really.



    My friend proved it though. I'll tell him to post here.

    By useless, I mean that it doesn't make anything easier really. You could do the second problem (72b) without proving anything and just using regular partial fractions. Though that ruins the spirit of the problem ;p

  6. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Full proof:

    Additional resource:



    Basically just do the same thing you do for a normal partial fraction problem, just with 10x more symbols and a little bit of reasoning. There's a sketchy part in expressing the product from m=1 to j-1 when j can very well be 1. I can easily do a piece-wise solution (when j = 1, when j = n, and otherwise), but you get the idea of the proof anyway. And by "two of the three terms", I mean either the A1 term remains, or the An term remains, or Aj remains where 1 < j < n. Better wording should say "all but one term get eliminated" instead.


    EDIT: Long time no see, guys.
    Last edited by Kalovale; 2012-10-26 at 11:06 PM.

  7. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Holy sh`it he hasn't posted since 2010.

    It's been that long?

  8. Neutron Male
    IGN: Yugidude3536
    Server: Bera
    Level: 177
    Job: Hero
    Guild: Prospect
    Alliance: ComeAtUsBro
    Michigan

    Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    0.o im in 10th grade and i think my brain just exploded. THIS IS MATH ISNT IT?? THIER ARE NO NUMBERS??

  9. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Math stops having a lot of numbers at around the Calculus level and is replaced with symbols.

  10. Neutron Male
    IGN: Yugidude3536
    Server: Bera
    Level: 177
    Job: Hero
    Guild: Prospect
    Alliance: ComeAtUsBro
    Michigan

    Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    great... just when i was starting to understand math.

  11. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Symbols represent numbers.

  12. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Here's an English translation:

    - Step 1: Clear the denominator by (1) multiplying each numerator (A1, A2, ..., Aj, ..., An) with every (x - aj) except for the one directly below it and (2) summing them together.
    - Step 2: Notice that each term of this pattern: Aj * (x - a[everything else except j]), thus the only term that is left when plugging in x = aj is the one that does not have (x - aj) in it. Incidentally, this is the Aj term.
    - Step 3: So P(aj) = Aj * (aj - a1) * (aj - a2) * ... * (aj - aj-1) * (aj - aj+1) * ... * (aj - an)
    - Step 4: Take the derivative of Q(x), using product rule after re-ordering Q(x) into (x - aj) * everything else. Q'(x) = (x - aj)' * everything else + (x - aj) * (everything else)'
    - Step 5: The second part is 0 when plugging in x = aj, so Q'(aj) = everything else = (aj - a1) * (aj - a2) * ... * (aj - aj-1) * (aj - aj+1) * ... * (aj - an)
    - Step 6: P(aj)/Q'(aj) = Aj

  13. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    I can't see the page for some reason, but if you were trying to isolate Q'(x) I think the 2nd method is a better proof, academically speaking. Also in terms of clarity.

    Hadriel

  14. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    The second one is a proof of a statement in the first one.

  15. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Ah ok I see why that was necessary now.

    Hadriel

  16. aka ClawofBeta Straight Male
    Corn's Avatar [Jr. Event Coordinator]

    IGN: ClawofBeta
    Server: LoL.NA
    Level: 30
    Job: Bot Lane
    Guild: N/A
    Alliance: N/A
    New_Jersey

    Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    Bro, I am in calculus and I had to spend like half an hour trying to process this.

    Thanks Kalovale.

  17. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    I feel like we need more math questions in here.

  18. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    In this thread?

    I don't have that fancy math-writing program, sorry if it's sloppy :(

    f(x,y) = xy + 64/x + 64/y

    Local Maximum values(s) : DNE [correct]

    Local Minimum values(s) : 48 Fixed it; works now

    Saddle points(s) (x, y, f) = DNE [correct]

    I think I'm putting the answer in the wrong form..?

    First derivatives:
    fx = y - 64/x^2; fy = x - 64/y^2

    Second derivatives:
    fxx = 128/x^3; fyy = 128/y^3; fxy = 1

    Set first derivatives = 0, substitute:
    y = 64/x^2; x = 64/y^2
    x = 64/(64/x^2)^2 = x^4/64

    Solve for x:
    x(x^3 - 64) = 0
    x = 0, x = 4

    Function is undefined at x = 0.

    Substituting x = 4 into fx gives y = 4.

    D(x,y) = fxx(x,y)*fyy(x,y) - fxy(x,y)
    D(4,4) = (2)(2) - 1 = 3

    Since D(4,4) > 0 and fxx(4,4) > 0, f(4,4) is a local minimum. Therefore, there are no local maximum or saddle points.

    WebAssign is not accepting (4,4) as an answer. I have tried (4,4,48) [for (x,y,f) format?], f(4,4), f(4,4)=48. Is there a standard form for answering that I missed?


    EDIT: 48 worked. Guess value(s) should have given it away, since it wasn't asking for a point.

    I'll probably be looking for more math help next semester and post a few questions.

  19. Default Re: Wait, wah...? Partial Fractions and Derivative Proof, I think..?


    It ain't fancy. It's just LaTeX.

  20.  

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •